Human rights and its concept

Published 14 October 2021, Last updated 15 October 2021

As the liberal democracy proliferates, the rights which people have are claimed in a lot of situations. The rights have a variety of kinds. Fundamentally a person has the nature of self-preservation. It could be thought as a right and assumed that all other rights stem from it[1]. Thinking of whether it is a right or not, the conscription is a difficult issue to be determined. In a sense that people are willing to risk their life for the nation, they have their will over the nature of self-preservation, but if their will is weaker and just obeying their institution, whether their right is protected or not is subject to discussion. However, one could suppose that they could grow their pride over the years.

If we expand a little bit the topic of self-preservation based on the nature of creatures, the battle risking their life for pure prestige is the primitive point where freeing oneself from nature comes out[2]. That means that being free is not restricted by nature.

Talking about the human rights has to do with the history of liberal democracy, and idelogies.

Think of liberaism and socialism (or communism), socialism came after liberalism aiming at the inequalities that capitalism is likely to cause. If liberal democracy started in the idea that meets the aim of respecting equally masters and slaves, it has the awareness of having the political equality (or égalité) as one of the founding principles[3]. The motto in France has it as one of the principles — liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Particularly in American sense, the role of government is to protect the rights of citizens[4]. The number of rights one has been claiming over the history seems increasing. It has the influence of the American founding fathers who were having the conviction that not only the one’s right to “life” but also the rights to “liberty”, and “happiness” should be protected — with regard to this point we can date back, further, to John Locke who supposed the rights to life and property[5]. It went further by the later generation that the right to “privacy” was listed among them, to give a further example[6].

The rights people are supposed to have is widened over the centuries. After coming to 21st century, people tend to use more the word “human rights”. It is a counterargument which people use against offense regarding oneself. If we assume two types of human rights’ categories that one is essential and the other is extended, regardless of whether the essential human rights or the extended, their deeper understanding enables human beings to appreciate themselves.

In the beginning of 21st century, people came to care about the vulnerable in every bit of details. That is a great step and a progress but the way it cares has the room for improvement.

Before going into deeper, I need to say that the violation of human rights has many cases of serious issues that one cannot forgive, that is totally understandable, and what I focus on, here, is only the expanded usage of “human rights” which is located in the periphery of the word.

When finding someone who uttered the non-political-correct remarks over some people, for example, the society at once condemns and refuse the person. Every case is different, and it is not easy to distinguish which case is related to the fundamental human rights or not. However, cancel culture which caused by the intensity of calling for human rights doesn’t seem working better for society in fundamental level. What matters is that the refusal of cancel culture in society is not a framework for the fundamental progress though it is a sign of rising awareness provided the history of human beings. Because refusing the opinions or actions of others is not a solution but It is closer to oppression. In that case, the condemned idea goes into the underground and that would crawl until it would come up to the surface again.

When using the word “human rights”, it feels like the issues they refer to are fundamentally involved in human rights. However, it in the 2010s, it is used frequently, being connected to human rights as if those issues should be solved in the aspects of human rights while the concept has been expandedly. Because we are human beings, problems arise in our life can be connected to them. Expanded usage of the word lost its meaning and sphere over time and that is what’s been happening. Without taking a look at the root cause of problem, people tend to use the convenient word. This simplified situation leads to simply perceivable confrontation between one and another.

As an option to cope with this problem, not a person who may cause populism, but transcendence such as rules or principles could better work for avoiding it. Not fluctuating objects which can flexibly adapt to the environment and the era it goes through, it would be, rather I would say more stable, general concepts that are helpful to convey the wisdom of the former to the present. Transcendental concepts enable people to think over its deeper cause. Having such concepts differs from directly looking at those in power, or looking at the people on the Internet, in the perspective that looking at people often lead the society to the negative end as the social media demonstrated.

Place the concept of human rights at the surface layer or more fundamental layer, the former is, due to the simplicity and structure of just a counterargument for a violation in the same layer with the violator, not going to solve the problem fundamentally but is going to oppress it by the vast number of people in support. The latter needs the redefinition of human rights required because of the extended usage of rights.

Fundamentally thinking what human rights are. Intensively claiming one’s rights doesn’t necessarily lead to the better. It may be needed in case of urgency, but in the long run it ought to have the robustness and lastness in its idea. It should focus on the way people think, not insisting that their thought is the justice. Naming almost every aspect of possible action by human as a right respectively would lead to what kind of world it would be.

The cancel culture frequently seen on the Internet, particularly on social media, tries to delete the culture or the history of human beings. It is to delete the person who violated or the remarks or the things. People tend to criticize the others by finding the past remarks or deeds. It is often understandable that those condemned acts are the ones people cannot forgive.

However, excessively trying to find the past wrong doings of people who comes to the front and pushing them to the backward doesn’t seem working better for our civilization. This mechanism doesn’t bring the good to society in the long run. What should be noted here is that deletion caused by cancel culture is different from what humans reflect the past doings and progress themselves better.

[1] The end of history and the last man. Francis Fukuyama. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.158.

[2] The end of history and the last man. Francis Fukuyama. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.152.

[3] The idea comes from or influenced by p.152 of The end of history and the last man. Francis Fukuyama. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4.

[4] The end of history and the last man. Francis Fukuyama. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.159.

[5] The end of history and the last man. Francis Fukuyama. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.159.

[6] The end of history and the last man. Francis Fukuyama. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. p.159.